Markus--
You wrote:
you wrote (19 Jan 2003):
Copeland isn't a Condorcet version. Copeland is a Condorcet Criterion
method, but it isn't an interpretation of one of Condorcet's proposals
for solving circular ties.
That's hair-splitting.
I reply:
No, not every Condorcet Criterion method is Co
First, I tried to get to the paper that you referenced but the link was
bad. Rather than the full link, maybe it's best to send me instructions
on how to search for the paper.
Steve Barney said:
> p=profile=
> [[5]
> [0]
> [0]
> [0]
> [3]
> [0]]
>
> T(p)=(1/6)(7,8,3,-2,8,8)
I'll have to loo
Alex:
See my comments between your lines, below.
SB
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alex Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Steve Barney said:
[...]
> > If you don't like Condorcet's example, how about this one, which I have
> > looked at before:
> >
> > 5 ABC
> > 3 BCA
> >
> >
> > Can you give
I've updated my site again with what now should be a fix for my RP
computations. I've also added an additional input option to allow for
easier testing - a pairwise matrix can now be pasted into a field.
I've also provided some sample input matrices to paste into the
field. If anyone has some i
Steve Barney said:
> this is why you get two different decompositions when you do it in
> different orders. Try using Saari's decomposition matrix with your
> examples, and see if you get the same decomposition profile as you get
> with your method.
Decomposing a vector into its projections ont
Dear Mike,
you wrote (19 Jan 2003):
> Copeland isn't a Condorcet version. Copeland is a Condorcet Criterion
> method, but it isn't an interpretation of one of Condorcet's proposals
> for solving circular ties.
That's hair-splitting. You said that "in all Condorcet versions a
candidate wins if he
